Conflict of Interest

The OCP aims for the highest standards of integrity and transparency in everything we do. We want to reduce the risk of a conflict of interest between any of our stakeholders or users, which would compromise trust in our mission and the carbon market more generally.

Our Conflict of Interest policies, outlined below, ensures that our team, partners, and any user with decision-making authority on our platform adhere to the highest ethical standards. We commit to identifying, disclosing, and managing conflict of interest effectively, safeguarding the trust and integrity upon which the OCP is built.

We have 2 versions of our COI policy:

1) Our internal team COI policy, covering the OCP management, employees, and board, ensures the OCP operates independently from the methodologies and projects we register.

• The OCP is designed so that the approval of new carbon crediting methodologies or projects is the responsibility of independent, third-party Experts and Validators; oneshot.earth employees should not have any decision-making authority over these approvals.

• However, some employees may have more impact on the decision-making process through contact with the decision-making Experts and Validators. These roles will be held to a higher degree of conflict of interest management than other employees.

• Process:

  • All employees must sign complete a COI Attestation when they join the company

  • In January, all current employees must update and resubmit a COI Attestation.

  • If a Conflict Of Interest is identified during or between attestations:

    • Communicate the identified COI to your direct OCP manager, who will communicate to OCP Leadership

      • The identified COI will be added to the OCP Conflict of Interest Register.

      • COI priority, mitigation actions and follow up will be discussed by OCP Leadership and reviewed with the OCP Board. Proposed resolution will be submitted in the registar.

      • Potential board members with a substantial conflict of interest will not be approved.

      • Follow Ups will be tracked quarterly in OCP Board meetings

2) Our external community policy covers voting experts and validators, who provide external third-party expertise and decision-making on whether new methodologies and projects should be approved. These experts and validators must be independent of the OCP, as well as the methodology curators and project developers using our platform.

• Any person or organization acting as a voting expert on a methodology review panel or validating a project must be independent of the project developer involved, ensuring they are impartial and objective; dependency guidelines are listed below.

• Process:

  • All experts and validators, as well as any other user with a potential conflict of interest, must complete and sign our Conflict of Interest Attestation before they start work.

  • In January, all active members of the expert and validator community must update and resubmit the Conflict of Interest Attestation.

  • If a Conflict of Interest is identified during or between attestations:

    • If you identify an issue, please contact the OCP team with details.

      • The identified COI will be added to the OCP Conflict of Interest Register.

    • For work not started, the affected person or organization will be removed from the piece of work.

    • Under some circumstances, if a COI is identified the voting expert will be moved to sit on the non-voting panel. Meaning, they will be able to provide feedback on the methodology, but not have decision-making authority.

    • For work started or completed, we'll set up a review panel with OCP management and anyone else involved to assess risk and decide on appropriate action. The board will review and approve this decision and action.

All identified Conflicts of Interest will be recorded in the public Conflict Of Interest Register.

OCP Conflict of Interest Register - Public Access

Dependency Guidelines

• ‘Dependency’ includes:

  • Financial interests or connection (direct or indirect) - ownership stakes, investments, financial ties

  • Previous relationships - any past or present relationships with the PD - partnerships, employment, consultancy or any other affiliation that could affect objectivity

  • And any other situation that might raise the question of bias, including indirect interests with suppliers and clients